KATHLEEN M. WALPOLE v. THOMAS L. WALPOLE, III
No. 101900
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
June 4, 2015
2015-Ohio-2157
BEFORE: Stewart, J., Jones, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Divisiоn Case No. DR-07-318177
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 4, 2015
Jack W. Abel
Abel & Zocolo Co., L.P.A.
815 Superior Ave., Suite 1915
Cleveland, OH 44114
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Scott S. Rosenthal
Adam J. Thurman
Schoonover, Rosenthal, Thurman & Daray, L.L.C.
1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1720
Cleveland, OH 44114
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Kathleen Walpole requested that this appeal be placed on this court’s accelerated calendar pursuant to
{¶2} The substance of this appeal is that the dоmestic relations division of the court of common pleas erred by adopting a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) offered by Kathleen’s former husband, defendant-appellee Thomas Walpole. That QDRO assignеd to each party a 50 percent share of the proceeds of Thomas’s Novelis Savings and Retirement plan. Kathleen maintains that the QDRO violated the terms of the divorce decree providing that “plaintiff shall bе awarded, as a division of property, defendant’s interest in the Novelis Savings Plan (401k), which division shall be accomрlished by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order.” Kathleen argues that by adopting a 50/50 split of the Novelis plan, thе court essentially modified the division of property, despite failing to retain jurisdiction to do so.
{¶3} At the time of thе divorce, the parties had assets in defined benefit plans and contribution plans. The defined benefit plans wеre: the Novelis Pension Plan, Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan, and State Teachers Retirement System; the contribution plans were the Novelis Savings Plan (410K) and Alcan Corporation Non-Qualified Deferred Compensаtion.
The Court further finds that plaintiff should be awarded, as a division of property, defendant’s entire interest in the Novelis Savings Plan (401k) with a value of Eight Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Nine Dollars ($887,359.00) as оf October 31, 2008, which division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the defendant should be awarded, as a division of property, his Alcan Corporation Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, with a value of Seven Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Six Dollars ($724,956.00) as of October 30, 2008. The balances in those accounts as of the time of the final Decree, exclusive of any additional contributions after Novembеr 5, 2008, should be equally divided.
{¶5} In the same divorce decree, the court reiterated that:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff shall be awarded, as a division of property, defendant’s interest in the Novelis Sаvings Plan (401K), which division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.
The court then stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED thаt the balances in the aforementioned accounts as of the time of the final Decree, exclusive of any additional contributions after November 5, 2008, shall be equally divided.”
{¶7} Viewed in this manner, the court’s decision to adopt Thomas’s proposed QDRO and its 50/50 split of the Novelis Savings Plan was not error; indeed, it operated as an equal split of the contribution plans for purposes оf dividing the marital estate. The court’s judgment entry makes this point clear:
The Judgment Entry of Divorce specifically provides that:
Plaintiff shall retain the entire Novelis Savings Plan (401K) (#9585S) and Defendant shall retain the Alcan Corporation Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan. The balances of those accounts at final decree, exclusive of any additional contributions after November 5, 2008, shall be divided equally.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the QDRO proposed by Defendant which awards Plaintiff 50% of the balancе of the Novelis 401K as of November 5, 2008 is the correct QDRO.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶9} For the same reasons, we conclude that the court had no obligation to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter. The court was ruling on a divorce decree that it issued, so it wаs capable of determining the meaning of the language used in that decree without an evidentiary hearing. See Huntington Natl. Bank v. Donatini, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-08-105, 2015-Ohio-67, ¶ 10 (“A trial court is in the best position to interpret its own judgment once entered.”).
{¶10} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grоunds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the domestic relations division to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR